Weeds playing well and emerging as a solid QB; best we've had since 94Little taking the next step to "good" NFL WRT Rich stopping his Denny Terrio TributeOwens at outside CB playing serviceable ball, not slot as in ATLKrueger not just a function of playing in purple with T-RexThe DLHaden taking it up to eliteNorv getting this bunch to look like pros

I just feel like there are too many unanswered questions. Not all of them will have a positive answer as the season kicks into gear. This is probably a 6 win team.

Mindless optimism (or pessimism) is fun and all, but I acknowledge that it is fundamentally useless. I don't have to be optimistic to want to watch these games.

And any Deney Terrio reference gets a

So as I look at my TCF wall calendar and cross reference it with my Cleveland sports lunar cycle map, that means you're approximately 12 weeks away for your "I don't care anymore" stage and your give-a-shit being busted, correct?

Giveashit's still broken. I said I was interested to watch them, not excited. There are many teams that I'm interested to watch. I'm interested to see how EJ Manuel does in Buffalo. If he blows goats, it won't really affect me one way or the other.

Nah... I'm sure Weeds defies science and physiology given he's a Browns guy. He'd be old and on the down side if he was in KC or Philadelphia or somewhere.

The good news is that with an uber-athlete like Weeden or Vick, even their downside athletically is heads and tails above most other guys in the league.

^^^^ The Sharknado of posts. Stupid, makes no sense, but entertaining nonetheless.

Tom Brady turned 30 in 2007. Drew Brees at the end of the 2008 season. Peyton Manning in 2006. Kurt Warner in 2001. Favre in 2000. Why did no one tell these men that they were at the tail end of their careers? Woulda saved them lots of embarrassing seasons.

Weeden wouldn't be old and on the downside if he was anywhere - he's been in the league one year and he's a pocket QB. I start to worry about QB's like him - ALL QB's, not just him - losing their arm around 35 or so.

At 30, my reservations with him are all about his head, not his arm. I think he will fail because of mental shortcomings. Physically, he's fine.

Nah... I'm sure Weeds defies science and physiology given he's a Browns guy. He'd be old and on the down side if he was in KC or Philadelphia or somewhere.

The good news is that with an uber-athlete like Weeden or Vick, even their downside athletically is heads and tails above most other guys in the league.

^^^^ The Sharknado of posts. Stupid, makes no sense, but entertaining nonetheless.

Tom Brady turned 30 in 2007. Drew Brees at the end of the 2008 season. Peyton Manning in 2006. Kurt Warner in 2001. Favre in 2000. Why did no one tell these men that they were at the tail end of their careers? Woulda saved them lots of embarrassing seasons.

Weeden wouldn't be old and on the downside if he was anywhere - he's been in the league one year and he's a pocket QB. I start to worry about QB's like him - ALL QB's, not just him - losing their arm around 35 or so.

At 30, my reservations with him are all about his head, not his arm. I think he will fail because of mental shortcomings. Physically, he's fine.

Like I tried to tell peeker. Lot's of effective pocket QB's play until they are 40.

Nah... I'm sure Weeds defies science and physiology given he's a Browns guy. He'd be old and on the down side if he was in KC or Philadelphia or somewhere.

The good news is that with an uber-athlete like Weeden or Vick, even their downside athletically is heads and tails above most other guys in the league.

^^^^ The Sharknado of posts. Stupid, makes no sense, but entertaining nonetheless.

Tom Brady turned 30 in 2007. Drew Brees at the end of the 2008 season. Peyton Manning in 2006. Kurt Warner in 2001. Favre in 2000. Why did no one tell these men that they were at the tail end of their careers? Woulda saved them lots of embarrassing seasons.

Weeden wouldn't be old and on the downside if he was anywhere - he's been in the league one year and he's a pocket QB. I start to worry about QB's like him - ALL QB's, not just him - losing their arm around 35 or so.

At 30, my reservations with him are all about his head, not his arm. I think he will fail because of mental shortcomings. Physically, he's fine.

Reading is hard.

I never said he was on the downside of his career. I said he was on the downside of his physical prime which is generally considered 25-32. To be fair, he was on the downside of that factor when he was drafted so it was no fault of his own. Actually, in general terms it's no one's fault ever that they decline physically. It's natural. It's also why many teams eschew the nearly 30-yr old draftees, fwiw.

And it's nice to see Weeden mentioned in the same breath as Brady, Brees, Manning, Warner and Favre. I could get used to that.

So, to sum up, he is on the downside physically and I agree that that pesky little mental side of things is an even bigger issue. Just wish there would have been some way to know about those things when he was coming out of school...

But ya know what? I don't even want to go down the road much traveled again. We'll know soon enough what he is and whether it's enough. He's going to get every opportunity to be what he can be. Hopefully it's more Kurt Warner than Werner Klemperer.

Nah... I'm sure Weeds defies science and physiology given he's a Browns guy. He'd be old and on the down side if he was in KC or Philadelphia or somewhere.

The good news is that with an uber-athlete like Weeden or Vick, even their downside athletically is heads and tails above most other guys in the league.

^^^^ The Sharknado of posts. Stupid, makes no sense, but entertaining nonetheless.

Tom Brady turned 30 in 2007. Drew Brees at the end of the 2008 season. Peyton Manning in 2006. Kurt Warner in 2001. Favre in 2000. Why did no one tell these men that they were at the tail end of their careers? Woulda saved them lots of embarrassing seasons.

Weeden wouldn't be old and on the downside if he was anywhere - he's been in the league one year and he's a pocket QB. I start to worry about QB's like him - ALL QB's, not just him - losing their arm around 35 or so.

At 30, my reservations with him are all about his head, not his arm. I think he will fail because of mental shortcomings. Physically, he's fine.

Speaking of jumping the Sharknado

You just compared 10 or so Super Bowl appearances to a guy who, just last year, had to be taught how to take a snap from under center? Is that what I just read?

In order to have diminishing skills as you age you need to have had skills at one point in your career.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

Nah... I'm sure Weeds defies science and physiology given he's a Browns guy. He'd be old and on the down side if he was in KC or Philadelphia or somewhere.

The good news is that with an uber-athlete like Weeden or Vick, even their downside athletically is heads and tails above most other guys in the league.

^^^^ The Sharknado of posts. Stupid, makes no sense, but entertaining nonetheless.

Tom Brady turned 30 in 2007. Drew Brees at the end of the 2008 season. Peyton Manning in 2006. Kurt Warner in 2001. Favre in 2000. Why did no one tell these men that they were at the tail end of their careers? Woulda saved them lots of embarrassing seasons.

Weeden wouldn't be old and on the downside if he was anywhere - he's been in the league one year and he's a pocket QB. I start to worry about QB's like him - ALL QB's, not just him - losing their arm around 35 or so.

At 30, my reservations with him are all about his head, not his arm. I think he will fail because of mental shortcomings. Physically, he's fine.

Speaking of jumping the Sharknado

You just compared 10 or so Super Bowl appearances to a guy who, just last year, had to be taught how to take a snap from under center? Is that what I just read?

In order to have diminishing skills as you age you need to have had skills at one point in your career.

I thought it was solely because Chris Weinke, John Beck and Josh Booty didn't fit the argument Hiko was trying to make.

Nah... I'm sure Weeds defies science and physiology given he's a Browns guy. He'd be old and on the down side if he was in KC or Philadelphia or somewhere.

The good news is that with an uber-athlete like Weeden or Vick, even their downside athletically is heads and tails above most other guys in the league.

^^^^ The Sharknado of posts. Stupid, makes no sense, but entertaining nonetheless.

Tom Brady turned 30 in 2007. Drew Brees at the end of the 2008 season. Peyton Manning in 2006. Kurt Warner in 2001. Favre in 2000. Why did no one tell these men that they were at the tail end of their careers? Woulda saved them lots of embarrassing seasons.

Weeden wouldn't be old and on the downside if he was anywhere - he's been in the league one year and he's a pocket QB. I start to worry about QB's like him - ALL QB's, not just him - losing their arm around 35 or so.

At 30, my reservations with him are all about his head, not his arm. I think he will fail because of mental shortcomings. Physically, he's fine.

Reading is hard.

I never said he was on the downside of his career. I said he was on the downside of his physical prime which is generally considered 25-32. To be fair, he was on the downside of that factor when he was drafted so it was no fault of his own. Actually, in general terms it's no one's fault ever that they decline physically. It's natural. It's also why many teams eschew the nearly 30-yr old draftees, fwiw.

And it's nice to see Weeden mentioned in the same breath as Brady, Brees, Manning, Warner and Favre. I could get used to that.

So, to sum up, he is on the downside physically and I agree that that pesky little mental side of things is an even bigger issue. Just wish there would have been some way to know about those things when he was coming out of school...

But ya know what? I don't even want to go down the road much traveled again. We'll know soon enough what he is and whether it's enough. He's going to get every opportunity to be what he can be. Hopefully it's more Kurt Warner than Werner Klemperer.

Dude, with that monicle he could really see the small NFL windows down field.

You just compared 10 or so Super Bowl appearances to a guy who, just last year, had to be taught how to take a snap from under center? Is that what I just read?

In order to have diminishing skills as you age you need to have had skills at one point in your career.

I would've hoped that was obvious. I wasn't "comparing" any of those QB's to Weeden, just using them as data points that 30 isn't a physical cliff. Not many QB's get to start into their mid-30's unless they're pretty good in the first place, so there aren't a ton of opportunities for me to say "Clearly, Derek Anderson's arm was just as strong as it ever was well into his 30's".

But, if you like, I'm sure that Jeff George's inaccurate arm wasn't noticeably weaker at 35 than at 25. That might be a more apt comparison if you feel the need to compare the QB's I mention to Weeds.

My only point was that if Weeden is going to become good, then there's no reason he shouldn't remain at that physical level into his mid 30's at least. If he is to remain meh as many of us suspect, it won't matter. I was just pointing out that the whole age thing that Brian likes to bring up is stupid and useless, much like Brian himself.

You just compared 10 or so Super Bowl appearances to a guy who, just last year, had to be taught how to take a snap from under center? Is that what I just read?

In order to have diminishing skills as you age you need to have had skills at one point in your career.

I would've hoped that was obvious. I wasn't "comparing" any of those QB's to Weeden, just using them as data points that 30 isn't a physical cliff. Not many QB's get to start into their mid-30's unless they're pretty good in the first place, so there aren't a ton of opportunities for me to say "Clearly, Derek Anderson's arm was just as strong as it ever was well into his 30's".

But, if you like, I'm sure that Jeff George's inaccurate arm wasn't noticeably weaker at 35 than at 25. That might be a more apt comparison if you feel the need to compare the QB's I mention to Weeds.

My only point was that if Weeden is going to become good, then there's no reason he shouldn't remain at that physical level into his mid 30's at least. If he is to remain meh as many of us suspect, it won't matter. I was just pointing out that the whole age thing that Brian likes to bring up is stupid and useless, much like Brian himself.

Those who harp on Weeds age miss the point: the first time the Zombie Browns have a decent QB for 4 seasons will be 3 1/2 more seasons than ever, even if it is only 4. With "4" being a wholly unscientific and arbitrary number pulled out my corn hole.

You just compared 10 or so Super Bowl appearances to a guy who, just last year, had to be taught how to take a snap from under center? Is that what I just read?

In order to have diminishing skills as you age you need to have had skills at one point in your career.

I would've hoped that was obvious. I wasn't "comparing" any of those QB's to Weeden, just using them as data points that 30 isn't a physical cliff. Not many QB's get to start into their mid-30's unless they're pretty good in the first place, so there aren't a ton of opportunities for me to say "Clearly, Derek Anderson's arm was just as strong as it ever was well into his 30's".

But, if you like, I'm sure that Jeff George's inaccurate arm wasn't noticeably weaker at 35 than at 25. That might be a more apt comparison if you feel the need to compare the QB's I mention to Weeds.

My only point was that if Weeden is going to become good, then there's no reason he shouldn't remain at that physical level into his mid 30's at least. If he is to remain meh as many of us suspect, it won't matter. I was just pointing out that the whole age thing that Brian likes to bring up is stupid and useless, much like Brian himself.

Those who harp on Weeds age miss the point: the first time the Zombie Browns have a decent QB for 4 seasons will be 3 1/2 more seasons than ever, even if it is only 4. With "4" being a wholly unscientific and arbitrary number pulled out my corn hole.

Shee-it, I'll take 2 at this point. 2 years in a row with good QB play would be incomprehensible. Not putting money on even that.

You just compared 10 or so Super Bowl appearances to a guy who, just last year, had to be taught how to take a snap from under center? Is that what I just read?

In order to have diminishing skills as you age you need to have had skills at one point in your career.

I would've hoped that was obvious. I wasn't "comparing" any of those QB's to Weeden, just using them as data points that 30 isn't a physical cliff. Not many QB's get to start into their mid-30's unless they're pretty good in the first place, so there aren't a ton of opportunities for me to say "Clearly, Derek Anderson's arm was just as strong as it ever was well into his 30's".

But, if you like, I'm sure that Jeff George's inaccurate arm wasn't noticeably weaker at 35 than at 25. That might be a more apt comparison if you feel the need to compare the QB's I mention to Weeds.

My only point was that if Weeden is going to become good, then there's no reason he shouldn't remain at that physical level into his mid 30's at least. If he is to remain meh as many of us suspect, it won't matter. I was just pointing out that the whole age thing that Brian likes to bring up is stupid and useless, much like Brian himself.

Those who harp on Weeds age miss the point: the first time the Zombie Browns have a decent QB for 4 seasons will be 3 1/2 more seasons than ever, even if it is only 4. With "4" being a wholly unscientific and arbitrary number pulled out my corn hole.

Been through all of this. There's no one behind this keyboard missing that point. There's no one behind this keyboard who doesn't put the QBs arm and fact he's nearly 30 well behind the fact that he's a dim fucking bulb and he better get smarter faster than he gets older.

It's simply not missing the point to understand the fact the Browns QBs have blown and yet to laugh at and be skeptical of what they've done and who they've acquired to 'rectify' that. Maybe it's simply my fault for not having faith in the guys that paid Jake Delhomme Warren Buffet money to blow here and then drafted Coltastic in thinking that their ~30 yr old, dumb kid is going to pan out.

Maybe this is the one thing that Holmgren nailed!!! Because we want it to be!!!

Try and simplify the concept for you by telling you that my old, German grandfather had a little sign on the wall heading down to his basement. It said: "Ve Get Too Soon Oldt, und Too Late Schmardt".

And some people never get there.

Time will tell. Would I take 2-4 years of top flight QB play? Fuck yes.

What that has to do with Brandon Weeden? I have absolutely no freaking clue.

The biggest factor as to whether Weeds will be playing between the ages of 35-40 boils down to if he's good. If he ends up being at least good, he can play for 10 years, as long as he gets a modicum of protection.

His age is kind of irrelevant really, at least when talking about wins and losses and on field results. Plus to be fair and accurate let's remember he has a few years less of hits on him than most NFL QBs his age.

He'll be what he is going to be, it's just a matter of if it is sooner or later.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:The biggest factor as to whether Weeds will be playing between the ages of 35-40 boils down to if he's good. If he ends up being at least good, he can play for 10 years, as long as he gets a modicum of protection.

His age is kind of irrelevant really, at least when talking about wins and losses and on field results. Plus to be fair and accurate let's remember he has a few years less of hits on him than most NFL QBs his age.

He'll be what he is going to be, it's just a matter of if it is sooner or later.

It's a factor. It's not as big a factor as other factors. But I have far more faith that a 21 or 22 yr old can be more than what he is and develop either leadership tendencies and make more intelligent decisions than I do that a 30 yr old will develop those tendencies or make more intelligent decisions.

IMO Weeden has a fatal flaw that will forever limit him and I'm simply not sure whether it's intelligence, leadership or balls. The lack of any of the three is probably going to doom any QB and it's something that bothers me when you watch him play or listen to him speak.

FUDU wrote:The biggest factor as to whether Weeds will be playing between the ages of 35-40 boils down to if he's good. If he ends up being at least good, he can play for 10 years, as long as he gets a modicum of protection.

His age is kind of irrelevant really, at least when talking about wins and losses and on field results. Plus to be fair and accurate let's remember he has a few years less of hits on him than most NFL QBs his age.

He'll be what he is going to be, it's just a matter of if it is sooner or later.

It's a factor. It's not as big a factor as other factors. But I have far more faith that a 21 or 22 yr old can be more than what he is and develop either leadership tendencies and make more intelligent decisions than I do that a 30 yr old will develop those tendencies or make more intelligent decisions.

IMO Weeden has a fatal flaw that will forever limit him and I'm simply not sure whether it's intelligence, leadership or balls. The lack of any of the three is probably going to doom any QB and it's something that bothers me when you watch him play or listen to him speak.

I hope I'm wrong.

The argument can be made that his age is actually a plus in terms of turning into a leader and making better on field decisions. A 30yo in any walk of life is more mature and wiser than a 21yo (at least 99% of the time, I assume you agree), so just b/c we're specifically talking about NFL QBs doesn't and shouldn't change that.

As far as Weeds not having balls, I think that is an unfair generalization based on incomplete data, simply b/c we don't know if he has had such a green light (enter Shurmur?). If Chud/Norm are as aggressive as advertised then I think the end of this season would be fair for you to judge that.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

I think the playcalling was so atrociously bad last year that it was impossible to evaluate Weeds.

It was clear the coaching staff wasn't coaching him well enough, and it was unclear whether that was his fault or their fault. I'm more inclined to assume that Childress was incompetent than I am Weeds.

Basically, last year was a lost year. Weeds showed flashes of suck and flashes of awesome. And he did it among some truly terrible circumstances, given the horrible, horrible, playcalling.

Weeds has this year. If he's good, awesome, if he's not fuck.

But no one knows which he's going to be. And pretending you do is just sad.

FUDU wrote:The biggest factor as to whether Weeds will be playing between the ages of 35-40 boils down to if he's good. If he ends up being at least good, he can play for 10 years, as long as he gets a modicum of protection.

His age is kind of irrelevant really, at least when talking about wins and losses and on field results. Plus to be fair and accurate let's remember he has a few years less of hits on him than most NFL QBs his age.

He'll be what he is going to be, it's just a matter of if it is sooner or later.

Key-rhyst. Now I'm reduced to agreeing with FUDU.

The issue isn't age so much as competence.

Now that we're there the next logical step is recognizing that it takes new QBs entering the NFL who aren't those that make plays on athleticism or surrounded by talent a year or two to see what's what. Last year we saw some ups and downs. This year we'll be able to better evaluate. By year 4 we'll know what Weeds is or is not. Not year two. Year two we'll at least know enough to know whether there ought to be a year three.

FUDU wrote:The biggest factor as to whether Weeds will be playing between the ages of 35-40 boils down to if he's good. If he ends up being at least good, he can play for 10 years, as long as he gets a modicum of protection.

His age is kind of irrelevant really, at least when talking about wins and losses and on field results. Plus to be fair and accurate let's remember he has a few years less of hits on him than most NFL QBs his age.

He'll be what he is going to be, it's just a matter of if it is sooner or later.

Key-rhyst. Now I'm reduced to agreeing with FUDU.

The issue isn't age so much as competence.

Now that we're there the next logical step is recognizing that it takes new QBs entering the NFL who aren't those that make plays on athleticism or surrounded by talent a year or two to see what's what. Last year we saw some ups and downs. This year we'll be able to better evaluate. By year 4 we'll know what Weeds is or is not. Not year two. Year two we'll at least know enough to know whether there ought to be a year three.

If I agree with the last paragraph, then how the hell is age not a factor for a 29 year old rookie on the 4 year plan?

Again, bigger factor is what he brings to the table, however, developing a guy just in time for physical declination....that's gotta count for something.

And the reason Hiko brought up all kinda big names as gar as mid-late 30's success is cause the list of guys that blew from 22 on never make it to 30. Not a whole lotta comparables here. Which is kinda the point.

peeker643 wrote:IMO Weeden has a fatal flaw that will forever limit him

We're aware of that.

You pointed it out pre-draft.

You pointed it out on draft night (I think. Shots and all....)

And you've pointed it out every day since.

We ll know you made your mind up about Weeds the first second you watched tour 4th you tube clip and read Joe Billies' draft preview site.

You've never had an open mind toward whether or not he could play, improve; whatever.

Not gonna speak for Peeker, but sincin' I had the same opinion on draft night....not anything to do with having an "open mind," for me it has a whole lot to do with discounting basically everything he did collegiately in that joke of a conference. Weeden, Colty, Geno...any of the 9,000 guys TTech ran out there to break records, K State feau Heisman canidates, Chase Daniel.....Not really sure what Brandon Weeden showed more than ANY of the above, save perhaps better pro size/strength.

With an NFL passing game that's predicated on quick analyzations and decisions, sitting back there and throwing to your first option open by 20 yards ain't really preparin' you for what's coming.

BEST case scenario was a 28/29 year old PROJECT.

My mind is open, if he plays well. I'm all for it. What kind of evidence ANYONE could have of this happening at the pro level....I guess that's what they are paid for.

I think Rich Gannon is an under used example of a lot of what we argue about RE Weeds, in terms of surrounding circumstances (talent, coaching, system) and "getting it" and how quickly.

I don't recall the scouting report on him out of Delaware in terms of his athleticism, but I do know he was surviving in the NFL making all his plays with his legs. Dude was physically past his prime when he finally hit his peak and became a legit NFL QB that could hurt you.

Just sayin. Weeds has enough physical tools to survive in this league, and I don't think anybody anywhere would ever suggest he could progress to a top level without help.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

leadpipe wrote:If I agree with the last paragraph, then how the hell is age not a factor for a 29 year old rookie on the 4 year plan?

I'll type slower Piper.

We haven't had a run of good QB play worth a shit for more than a half season since 1994.

Let's say Weed take 4 years to hit peak and started here at 29. The ramp up to peak will have to be "good" starting this year for him to keep a lease on life. In 4 years he'll be what, 33? let's say to Hiko's point his style of QB play allows him to play well until he's 36 and that's 3 seasons.

Name me the last time we had a QB play here who played well for 5 or 6 seasons?

I can worry about his replacement in 6 years so long as he can play worth a damn. You don't have to limit your QB search to a guy who is there for a decade or more.

The question remains whether he can play or not.

My OPINION, and that's just it, is that he was rated highly enough and has enough tools so that he has a legitimate shot, as opposed to a 3rd round flier. I'll keep an open mind given what he showed last season rather than fatally writing him off.

leadpipe wrote:If I agree with the last paragraph, then how the hell is age not a factor for a 29 year old rookie on the 4 year plan?

Again, bigger factor is what he brings to the table, however, developing a guy just in time for physical declination....that's gotta count for something.

I will agree that age is probably a factor when it comes to "how many years the front office gives you", especially when said front office didn't draft you. There is no 4 year plan. Course Blaine Gabbert ain't gettin' a 3rd season either, and he's 23. So maybe your window is just narrow as shit in the NFL.

If Weeden were to reach NFL peak after 4 years and that peak was actually good, then he's still only 32 and if someone offered me a 32 year old Brady/Brees etc. I'd take them in a heartbeat and just assume the window of opportunity is 3-4 years. Unless he's showing signs of physical declination, I'd never assume a 32 year old will be falling off a cliff anytime soon.

This isn't a kick returner or a corner, this is a pocket passer, gents.

The age question doesn't matter anyway - he doesn't improve (a lot) this year, he's gone. If he does improve (a lot), then you ride that wave even if it hits shore earlier than you'd like. No one knows when that physical declination will be. Bernie hit his around 28 (apparently). Brady's 36 and is still going strong. Whether Weeden's good or not is the only factor that matters.

leadpipe wrote:If I agree with the last paragraph, then how the hell is age not a factor for a 29 year old rookie on the 4 year plan?

I'll type slower Piper.

We haven't had a run of good QB play worth a shit for more than a half season since 1994.

Let's say Weed take 4 years to hit peak and started here at 29. The ramp up to peak will have to be "good" starting this year for him to keep a lease on life. In 4 years he'll be what, 33? let's say to Hiko's point his style of QB play allows him to play well until he's 36 and that's 3 seasons.

Name me the last time we had a QB play here who played well for 5 or 6 seasons?

I can worry about his replacement in 6 years so long as he can play worth a damn. You don't have to limit your QB search to a guy who is there for a decade or more.

The question remains whether he can play or not.

My OPINION, and that's just it, is that he was rated highly enough and has enough tools so that he has a legitimate shot, as opposed to a 3rd round flier. I'll keep an open mind given what he showed last season rather than fatally writing him off.

Yep.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

leadpipe wrote:Not really sure what Brandon Weeden showed more than ANY of the above, save perhaps better pro size/strength.

That's all you need.

Prototypical size, above average arm strength, performed well in big games, good stats... that's enough to make him a high-end NFL prospect. RG3 came out of the B12. Bradford came out of the B12. The B12 guys you mentioned that failed did so because they lacked requisite physical qualities, qualities that a lot of college QB's from every conference don't have but Weeden did.

Someone's always gonna look at that and say "I am brilliant enough to harness that power!"

Whether the coaches are actually brilliant enough to use him properly, whether he's intelligent enough to read the NFL game, whether he'll be able to process information quickly enough and make the correct decisions... those are things that can't be known. You can guess at them, but since they aren't known factors, talent evaluators will still take chances.

It was touched on briefly above; but considering the level of absolute suck that was Pat Shurmer and the fact that the Browns actually stayed in most of the games they played last year...I'm optimistic this will be a better squad.

That said, an entirely new defense with gapping holes in an already stretched secondary does not bode well. They've really only built one half of this defense. An injury to Ward or Haden and this ship will sink like a rock.

I do think the offense will be greatly improved though (no more SHUR) so there is a chance they do something special...like play .500 ball. Hell, if they really catch a break and the O-line and secondary stay healthy, maybe 9-7 and we're sniffing a WC spot.

leadpipe wrote:Not really sure what Brandon Weeden showed more than ANY of the above, save perhaps better pro size/strength.

That's all you need.

Prototypical size, above average arm strength, performed well in big games, good stats... that's enough to make him a high-end NFL prospect. RG3 came out of the B12. Bradford came out of the B12. The B12 guys you mentioned that failed did so because they lacked requisite physical qualities, qualities that a lot of college QB's from every conference don't have but Weeden did.

Someone's always gonna look at that and say "I am brilliant enough to harness that power!"

Whether the coaches are actually brilliant enough to use him properly, whether he's intelligent enough to read the NFL game, whether he'll be able to process information quickly enough and make the correct decisions... those are things that can't be known. You can guess at them, but since they aren't known factors, talent evaluators will still take chances.

I would argue that they failed because they were operating in an environment that wasn't CLOSE to an NFL Sunday as much as them lacking the physical qualities. Therefore, it's not necessarily the physical qualities - it's, as you mention, the fact that they are waaay behind the curve in the processing department. The "Texas Tech" argument - the fact that these guys were systems QB's.....it seems to be a-ok with some people when it spreads conference wide. That's all the big 12 has been for the last 4 years or so, a GD Texas Tech circus, with no semblance of defense, and nothing resembling pro football. Not sure why this is an unresonable reason to be skeptical.

Nothing personal against Weeds, I just didn't want to touch him with the same 10 foot pole I didn't want to touch Geno Smith with. He seems to have these "Pro Physical traits," - but I saw what happened to him from the moment teams started changing defenses at the line..... we'll see what happens.

leadpipe wrote:If I agree with the last paragraph, then how the hell is age not a factor for a 29 year old rookie on the 4 year plan?

I'll type slower Piper.

We haven't had a run of good QB play worth a shit for more than a half season since 1994.

Let's say Weed take 4 years to hit peak and started here at 29. The ramp up to peak will have to be "good" starting this year for him to keep a lease on life. In 4 years he'll be what, 33? let's say to Hiko's point his style of QB play allows him to play well until he's 36 and that's 3 seasons.

Name me the last time we had a QB play here who played well for 5 or 6 seasons?

I can worry about his replacement in 6 years so long as he can play worth a damn. You don't have to limit your QB search to a guy who is there for a decade or more.

The question remains whether he can play or not.

My OPINION, and that's just it, is that he was rated highly enough and has enough tools so that he has a legitimate shot, as opposed to a 3rd round flier. I'll keep an open mind given what he showed last season rather than fatally writing him off.

I'll type even slower...

I already acknowledged that whether he can play or not is the biggest factor.

I'm just offering my OPINION, that if you've got a project guy starting at 29, you've got an age issue.

Especially a pure pocket guy. Brady gets rid of the ball in about record time. Then there's the fact he's great. We'll get him to damn near 40 allright.

Not sure how many more immobile guys you're gonna get there as the game continues to change. Anyone wanna bet me the NFL record for total sacks gets broken this year? Cause it will. The % of pass plays will go up, and teams are hoarding anyone that can get to the QB cause they understand it's about the only way to legally defend the pass anymore. Immobile QB's are gonna have a harder time as the next few years pass, unless they can analyze and process fast. Real fast.

Which brings me full circle to my OPINION. Nothing that I'VE SEEN, from watching the Big 12, to seeing the performances of modern QB's from the Big 12, suggest they are getting a shred of preparation for the storm that's a comin' on Sundays. And if they can adjust IT WILL TAKE TIME, cause they are starting basically at square one.

We'll take the same thing JB, hell, I'll take 4 good years of QB play, and then send him behind the barn smiling. But damn man, I admire your confidence that the guy can get there conidering where he's been, what we've seen, and..ahem...the late start in life.

leadpipe wrote:I would argue that they failed because they were operating in an environment that wasn't CLOSE to an NFL Sunday as much as them lacking the physical qualities. Therefore, it's not necessarily the physical qualities - it's, as you mention, the fact that they are waaay behind the curve in the processing department.

Don't disagree with that. But 30 years from now coaches/FO types will still be taking chances on Big 12 guys that have the necessary physical traits since they see them passing for 4000 yards and figure they - in their wisdom - can mold that raw talent into an NFL gem.

It only takes one Big 12 QB to be good for people to say "Yeah, but so and so came from the B12..."

FUDU wrote:The biggest factor as to whether Weeds will be playing between the ages of 35-40 boils down to if he's good. If he ends up being at least good, he can play for 10 years, as long as he gets a modicum of protection.

His age is kind of irrelevant really, at least when talking about wins and losses and on field results. Plus to be fair and accurate let's remember he has a few years less of hits on him than most NFL QBs his age.

He'll be what he is going to be, it's just a matter of if it is sooner or later.

Key-rhyst. Now I'm reduced to agreeing with FUDU.

The issue isn't age so much as competence.

Now that we're there the next logical step is recognizing that it takes new QBs entering the NFL who aren't those that make plays on athleticism or surrounded by talent a year or two to see what's what. Last year we saw some ups and downs. This year we'll be able to better evaluate. By year 4 we'll know what Weeds is or is not. Not year two. Year two we'll at least know enough to know whether there ought to be a year three.

SD:

Your both only half right.

Regardless of record , due to his age the Browns will draft another QB next year , .

The record Weeden produces this year will determine if that pick will be a developmental choice or a number one replacement slot .

The future is now , and Weeds future is long past noon.

Banner has done an excellent job filling the roster instead of gutting and starting over , but anybody who thinks they view Weeds as the long term answer regardless of this years outcome , is smoking something you can't get at the local drive through.

Desperation pick by a desperate leadership group. Bad choice from the jump.

Nothing but vitriol and hate from the boards regarding Holmgren's tenure and yet the sheep bleat from BW and I gotta hear some half-assed gangsta poet tell me it's because of youtube and draft columns. THIS is the one Holmgren got right.

I'm sure it is.

Because apparently gangsta poet can't fucking see through his own bias and desperation while he screams about mine.

Age don't matterBrains don't matter

He's tallHe throws hardHe was selected by Holmgren who clearly knows exactly WTF he's doing in putting together teams and building QBs

I'm done talking about this. In two years we can let you pretend you were just open minded about a a big, tall guy your team took instead of ignorant and color-blind. To answer your question posed in the thread again: I'm not, but I know a few guys who are.

Desperation pick by a desperate leadership group. Bad choice from the jump.

Nothing but vitriol and hate from the boards regarding Holmgren's tenure and yet the sheep bleat from BW and I gotta hear some half-assed gangsta poet tell me it's because of youtube and draft columns. THIS is the one Holmgren got right.

I'm sure it is.

Because apparently gangsta poet can't fucking see through his own bias and desperation while he screams about mine.

Age don't matterBrains don't matter

He's tallHe throws hardHe was selected by Holmgren who clearly knows exactly WTF he's doing in putting together teams and building QBs

I'm done talking about this. In two years we can let you pretend you were just open minded about a a big, tall guy your team took instead of ignorant and color-blind. To answer your question posed in the thread again: I'm not, but I know a few guys who are.

IDK about anyone else but I'm glad we all got this out of the way for the start of the season.

leadpipe wrote:If I agree with the last paragraph, then how the hell is age not a factor for a 29 year old rookie on the 4 year plan?

I'll type slower Piper.

We haven't had a run of good QB play worth a shit for more than a half season since 1994.

Let's say Weed take 4 years to hit peak and started here at 29. The ramp up to peak will have to be "good" starting this year for him to keep a lease on life. In 4 years he'll be what, 33? let's say to Hiko's point his style of QB play allows him to play well until he's 36 and that's 3 seasons.

Name me the last time we had a QB play here who played well for 5 or 6 seasons?

I can worry about his replacement in 6 years so long as he can play worth a damn. You don't have to limit your QB search to a guy who is there for a decade or more.

The question remains whether he can play or not.

My OPINION, and that's just it, is that he was rated highly enough and has enough tools so that he has a legitimate shot, as opposed to a 3rd round flier. I'll keep an open mind given what he showed last season rather than fatally writing him off.

I'll type even slower...

I already acknowledged that whether he can play or not is the biggest factor.

I'm just offering my OPINION, that if you've got a project guy starting at 29, you've got an age issue.

Especially a pure pocket guy. Brady gets rid of the ball in about record time. Then there's the fact he's great. We'll get him to damn near 40 allright.

Not sure how many more immobile guys you're gonna get there as the game continues to change. Anyone wanna bet me the NFL record for total sacks gets broken this year? Cause it will. The % of pass plays will go up, and teams are hoarding anyone that can get to the QB cause they understand it's about the only way to legally defend the pass anymore. Immobile QB's are gonna have a harder time as the next few years pass, unless they can analyze and process fast. Real fast.

Which brings me full circle to my OPINION. Nothing that I'VE SEEN, from watching the Big 12, to seeing the performances of modern QB's from the Big 12, suggest they are getting a shred of preparation for the storm that's a comin' on Sundays. And if they can adjust IT WILL TAKE TIME, cause they are starting basically at square one.

We'll take the same thing JB, hell, I'll take 4 good years of QB play, and then send him behind the barn smiling. But damn man, I admire your confidence that the guy can get there conidering where he's been, what we've seen, and..ahem...the late start in life.

So about all this BS about quarterbacks from the Big 12....

It isn't the college. It isn't the conference. Hell, it's questionable it is the system rather than the mechanics.

Who came after Marrk Rypien and Drew Bledsoe and played for Mike Price from the all might PAC 10?

Who came after Heath Shuler and preceded T Martin in the venerable SEC?

Hell, I'm probably missing someone patently obvious, but the SEC has long been the gold standard of college football. Much pro set I style offense run there. I can think of one family that has produced QB's worth spit in the last half decade from the pro style teams in that conference that produces stars at every other position on the field. The only other successful SEC QB starting now is a spread offense product doing so based on his immense physical talent. The irony...

Edit - I forgot Cutler. Does vandy even count as the SEC? More irony.

If Brandon Weedon struggles and fails it will be because of Brandon Weedon. The rest is sophistry.